How do you get the "silken" look on flowing water?

copake_ham · Oct 10, 2007

Some of the shots I always enjoy seeing here are those of "babbling brooks" where the water flowing over the rocks has a soft "silken" appearance. Even though everything else may be in sharp focus - the water flows over the rocks in a soft silk-like fashion.

How is this done? Is it by exposure settings? Or is it done in during processing?

noblebeast · Oct 10, 2007

Loooooonnnng exposures. Well, they don't have to be real long, but a few seconds at least. I know others here have a lot more experience with this than I do, but I have found that neutral density filters are often employed in the technique. Not to mention a good, steady tripod!

Joe

walter23 · Oct 10, 2007

Yeah, it's just a long exposure thing. You can use neutral density filters to slow the light rushing through your lens if you're shooting in daylight and want longer exposure times than you'd get stopping down all the way.

KenM · Oct 10, 2007

This photograph:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

was, I believe, about a 45 second exposure. The length of exposure was driven by a few things: the aperture size (small, to get good DOF), and the low light level.

There are quite a few things that need to be taken into account, as mentioned above. Wind, DOF, speed of the water, etc. all need to be taken into account. Your best bet is to experiment: find a stream (or something similar), and make images using different exposure times. Try and remember how fast the faster was moving; once you have the negs in hand, you'll be able to draw your own conclusions about what shutter speed will give you the 'look' your after

Good luck!

Travis Nunn · Oct 10, 2007

Expanding on what Ken said, if the water flow is too heavy and your exposure is too long, you get a really nice picture of a white blob. Of course, none of my pictures have ever looked like that....

mark · Oct 10, 2007

The secret is a small aperture and a tripod. Next time you are in Tucson go out to Tanque Verde Canyon in the morning and practice on the water.

MikeK · Oct 10, 2007

copake_ham said:
Some of the shots I always enjoy seeing here are those of "babbling brooks" where the water flowing over the rocks has a soft "silken" appearance. Even though everything else may be in sharp focus - the water flows over the rocks in a soft silk-like fashion.

How is this done? Is it by exposure settings? Or is it done in during processing?

Long exposure is the way to go, but you also might try long multiple exposures - gives a bit more of a punch to that silky flow.

I believe our Les Maclean has posted some examples of this technique in the past.

Mike

dmr · Oct 10, 2007

copake_ham said:
the water flows over the rocks in a soft silk-like fashion.

How is this done? Is it by exposure settings? Or is it done in during processing?

That's the "bridal veil" look, no photoshop required. You will need a tripod. You do want a bit of sunlight as a highlight on the flow you wish to feature. Slow exposure, just enough to subordinate the detail of the flow. Moderate DOF, keep some of the still stuff in clear focus. Try exposures from maybe 1/8 or so to a couple seconds.

Lee L · Oct 10, 2007

MikeK said:
Long exposure is the way to go, but you also might try long multiple exposures - gives a bit more of a punch to that silky flow.

I believe our Les Maclean has posted some examples of this technique in the past.

Mike

In Les' book, he breaks an indicated 4 second exposure into 32 exposures at 1/125, so it's more what I'd consider multiple short exposures in that particular instance. Of course you can go with any combination of multiple exposures of any length that sum to the proper exposure length, and get a variety of effects in doing so.

The best way to get what you want, as always, is to make some tests and see what gets you where you want to go.

The longer the exposure, the "silkier", up to the point of overexposing.

Lee

johnnywalker · Oct 10, 2007

MikeK said:
Long exposure is the way to go, but you also might try long multiple exposures - gives a bit more of a punch to that silky flow.

I believe our Les Maclean has posted some examples of this technique in the past.

Mike

I've seen a couple of examples of water done this way, I think by Les and/or Barry Thornton. They do give a sense of motion, and not so "silky". I prefer them myself.

Sirius Glass · Oct 10, 2007

I spent on Fall taking photos of waterfalls and fall colors in the Finger Lakes region. What I learned:

Use a tripod!
1/4 to 1/2 second gives a good look. You can go up to 4 seconds, but then bracket the exposure time.
Going much longer usually does not improve the photo, in fact it can over do it. Try a few shots at 10 to 20 seconds and you will see what I mean.
If leaves are falling and you can catch enough in the air, take an exposure 1/60 second or shorter and then take a 1/4 to 1/2 second exposure. You can decide at home which you like better. I have discovered this is usually not something that can be correctly guessed every time when you are in the field.

Film is cheap! Go for it!

This is for waterfalls and flowing rivers or streams. I have not tried lakes or ocean tides enough to give recommendations.

Steve

Thanasis · Oct 10, 2007

From my experience, anything above four minutes will make the water in a fairly still body of lapping water (such as a swimming pool) look like glass. The more turbulent the water, the more of that delicate "misty" effect you will get on the water. It's definitely worth doing a few experiments to see how these effects can be controlled.

David H. Bebbington · Oct 10, 2007

Lee L said:
In Les' book, he breaks an indicated 4 second exposure into 32 exposures at 1/125 ...

Slight typo? 1/125 sec. is 8 milliseconds. 32 times this is 256 milliseconds. Mathematically, it would take 500 exposures of 1/125 to make 4 seconds, without allowance for reciprocity failure. It would of course also be possible to make multiple exposures, some at 1/125, some at slower speeds.

Regards,

David

pgomena · Oct 11, 2007

The direction of the flow also is important. If it is flowing perpendicularly to the camera, 1/4 sec (or longer if that's the desired effect) will do the job. If it's moving directly toward the camera, you may need longer minimum exposures to get that flowing look. In the end, the look you like the best is the best. It takes some experimentation.

Peter Gomena

roteague · Oct 11, 2007

I would agree with Steve above. However, I would probably go as slow as 1 second. Anything more than that, and you start losing detail, and the water just becomes a blob.

Lee L · Oct 11, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
Slight typo? 1/125 sec. is 8 milliseconds. 32 times this is 256 milliseconds. Mathematically, it would take 500 exposures of 1/125 to make 4 seconds, without allowance for reciprocity failure. It would of course also be possible to make multiple exposures, some at 1/125, some at slower speeds.

Regards,

David

Sorry, it was late and I made a mistake. The indicated exposure was 1/4 second, not 4 seconds. So Les did his math correctly and I should have been asleep in bed rather than at the keyboard. Thanks for the correction.

There are two other waterfall photos in Les' book. One used a single 4 second exposure and the other used 20 one second exposures for an indicated 20 second exposure.

Lee

Bob F. · Oct 11, 2007

I'll add my preference for 1/4s to 1s as my favourite range as it retains the look of water whilst giving the swirling effect. Longer exposures can make it look like milk, loosing much detail which I do not find as attractive. That of course is just a personal preference.

Bob.

Travis Nunn · Oct 11, 2007

I generally stick with either 1/2 second or 1 second, depending on the conditions of the water. Like Robert, I try to avoid the "white blob" and keep the detail in the water.

Markok765 · Oct 11, 2007

Tripod+slowfilm+small aperature+ND filters

Vaughn · Oct 11, 2007

This waterfall was taken at 2 seconds. A large falls from a long distance. Might be too "silky" for some folks, not enough for others.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As with any "special effect", the image should not depend on it to carry it...but instead add to the over-all image (or one runs the risk of creating another example of a cliche).

vaughn

djkloss · Oct 11, 2007

Steve Sherman's photograph of Farmington River is an amazing example of slow water. I saw this on his website quite some time ago. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain how he did it. These are just some of the details he gave with the image. Like I said... amazing! Way to go Steve!

5x7 Deardorrf Camera 210mm Symar S lens. F32 @ 15 minutes. Dev. HC110 Normal....
Look for Farmington River.....
http://steve-sherman.com/newengland_main.htm

David H. Bebbington · Oct 12, 2007

djkloss said:
Steve Sherman's photograph of Farmington River is an amazing example of slow water. I saw this on his website quite some time ago. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain how he did it. These are just some of the details he gave with the image. Like I said... amazing! Way to go Steve!

5x7 Deardorrf Camera 210mm Symar S lens. F32 @ 15 minutes. Dev. HC110 Normal....
Look for Farmington River.....
http://steve-sherman.com/newengland_main.htm

It's a great picture, although I am certain the 15-minute exposure was dictated by (very low) light levels and not by the desire for blur. It would take a braver man than me to feel confident that the leaves on the far bank were going to render sharply and not start waving in the wind after a few minutes, whereas the blur is no more than could have been obtained with a few seconds' exposure!

Maris · Oct 12, 2007

There is an old rule that indicates the best shutter speed for moving water is determined by the reciprocal of the fraction of the picture that consists of water. If water is 1/100 of the picture use 100seconds. If water is 1/2 of the picture then use two seconds.

I always use this rule when I just can't think of the right shutter speed. At other times I guess.

Vaughn · Oct 12, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
It's a great picture, although I am certain the 15-minute exposure was dictated by (very low) light levels and not by the desire for blur. It would take a braver man than me to feel confident that the leaves on the far bank were going to render sharply and not start waving in the wind after a few minutes, whereas the blur is no more than could have been obtained with a few seconds' exposure!

Welcome to my world!

Photographing in the redwoods usually means exposures of 15 seconds to 30 minutes. One's hair on arms and legs (I usually wear shorts) become hypersenstitive wind meters!

Mid-day, as the down slope winds reverse themselves and become up canyon winds, one can often sneak in a photo or two during the stillness of the change.

Vaughn

Vaughn · Oct 12, 2007

Maris said:
There is an old rule that indicates the best shutter speed for moving water is determined by the reciprocal of the fraction of the picture that consists of water. If water is 1/100 of the picture use 100seconds. If water is 1/2 of the picture then use two seconds.

Interesting rule of thumb. I'll will have to look through some old photos and see how this rule plays out!

Vaughn

How do you get the "silken" look on flowing water?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency